Lies about Health care no 1

[Danno 1,228]

Danno - when you reach a point in your life to qualify for Medicare and Social Security benefits, will you refuse to accept those benefits or will you take them?

Stephen, this lame attempt at connecting the two is.. well lame.

Just because I use the U.S. Post Office does not mean I welcome more govt. in my life.

By the way..

Why does the Govt refuse to let anyone else deliver something to your mail box?

are the protecting my interests... or theirs?

So you want your Medicare and Social Security when you qualify, correct?

Stephen, I like everyone else plan to milk as much cash out of the system as I can.

Do you think this is a sound mentality we have created ?

Interesting. So you despise government programs like Social Security and Medicare, but you'll participate when the opportunity arises. It'd be interested to see whether your attitude changes, if for some reason you life depends on those two programs. Millions of elderly in this country would die without Social Security and Medicare. They were landmark programs that have been tremendously successful, yet inconvenient for the extremists on the Right who rant on about the Fed Gov't inability to do anything right. Because, if they openly admitted that those two programs actually are successful, they would have to completely rethink their position about the Fed Gov't.

Extremist Right view - Government can't do anything right.

Moderate view - Government can and does some things right.

Extremist Left view - the Government is the answer to everything.

As much as the extremists on the Right want to paint those on the Left who are pushing for health care reform as extremists on the Left, you see where their position is....right in the middle. And that's where most Americans are ideologically. The happy medium.

Stephen, I don't "despise" these programs, I think they began with good intention and like all govt/ programs their scope has widened beyond recognition.

Who can argue that they WILL BANKRUPT us?

Who will take care of granny then?

Oh and your hyper warnings that "millions would die without these programs would require quite a stretch.

The wealthiest segment in our society is... SENIORS!

Any idea how much My M.I.L. gets a month in Russia?

$100 I don't recall seeing too many old ladies living on the street (sober).

Yet somehow in the richest nation in the world, people are going to watch their granny Starve.

You and I know almost everyone collects way more than they paid in.... you call this a successful program?

I could not read the whole article.

I found the first little lie in the article and lost patience right there:

LIBERAL LIES ABOUT NATIONAL HEALTH CARE: FIRST IN A SERIES

by Ann Coulter

August 19, 2009

Tiny little France and Germany have more competition among health insurers than the U.S. does right now. Amazingly, both of these socialist countries have less state regulation of health insurance than we do...

In France, health insurance is government regulated. Ie there is ONE insurer and no competition. The competing insurance companies only compete to cover 20-30% of cost of some medical services which are not covered by the government insurance at 100%, but rather at 70-80%.

As medical services are cheap in France (22 euro for a visit to general practitioner), the copays and uncovered portions are relatively small and people do not have to have supplementary insurance, although many choose to buy it.

Hence - competition among insurance companies is much more fierce, because their product is not really needed, but may become beneficial if the price is cheap. Hence - no need for regulation

Also, as medical services are cheap, insurance companies do not charge high premiums.

Fin

Congrats! finally one detractor addressing the story.. rather than share random opinions.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Hmmm... its not a "story" its an op-ed piece.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Stephen, I don't "despise" these programs, I think they began with good intention and like all govt/ programs their scope has widened beyond recognition.

Who can argue that they WILL BANKRUPT us?

Who will take care of granny then?

Oh and your hyper warnings that "millions would die without these programs would require quite a stretch.

The wealthiest segment in our society is... SENIORS!

Any idea how much My M.I.L. gets a month in Russia?

$100 I don't recall seeing too many old ladies living on the street (sober).

Yet somehow in the richest nation in the world, people are going to watch their granny Starve.

You and I know almost everyone collects way more than they paid in.... you call this a successful program?

Danno, if you're going to argue such points with me, better be prepared to back them up with verifiable facts and figures.

Here's some cold hard facts about those old folks you think are swimming in money.

As of 2007, Social Security benefits comprise 50% or more of the income for 63% of elderly beneficiaries. It makes up 90% or more of the income for 32% of elderly beneficiaries.[53]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $12,948/year to individual retired workers receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for an individual is $10,400.[55] [56]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $21,132/year to couples receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for a couple is $14,000.[57] [58]

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp#Benefits

Edited August 28, 2009 by Col. 'Bat' Guano

[HannahP 119]

(5) Government intervention is the only way to provide coverage for pre-existing conditions.

The only reason most "pre-existing" conditions aren't already covered is because of government regulations that shrink the insurance market to a microscopic size, which leads to fewer options in health insurance and a lot more uninsured people than would exist in a free market.

The free market has produced a dizzying array of insurance products in areas other than health. (Ironically, array-associated dizziness is not covered by most health plans.) Even insurance companies have "reinsurance" policies to cover catastrophic events occurring on the properties they insure, such as nuclear accidents, earthquakes and Michael Moore dropping in for a visit and breaking the couch.

If we had a free market in health insurance, it would be inexpensive and easy to buy insurance for "pre-existing" conditions before they exist, for example, insurance on unborn -- unconceived -- children and health insurance even when you don't have a job. The vast majority of "pre-existing" conditions that currently exist in a cramped, limited, heavily regulated insurance market would be "covered" conditions under a free market in health insurance.

I've hit my word limit on liberal lies about national health care without breaking a sweat. See this space next week for more lies in our continuing series.

Right, because the insurance companies will be fighting to take on a patient like myself! OMG, we /know/ that at least once a year we'll have to dish out at least $10,000 for an inpatient psych stay. (Maybe twice, maybe five times.) She's on meds that cost roughly $1,000 a month. She sees a therapist twice a week: that's $500 a week, and a shrink for $500 every six months.

Really, I'm the IDEAL patient.

[Niels Bohr 72]

Freakin #######! France helped the Americans gained their Independence! And, the Americans turned their backs on them? by saying they're socialists!

[Joseph & Ana 0]

I thought this was a good Quote from Thomas Jefferson

"I predict the future happiness of Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" - Thomas Jefferson

[HAL 9000 96]

Yeah so some people still think this thing would be free to users?

Or are they just playing make believe again?

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, if you're going to argue such points with me, better be prepared to back them up with verifiable facts and figures.

Here's some cold hard facts about those old folks you think are swimming in money.

As of 2007, Social Security benefits comprise 50% or more of the income for 63% of elderly beneficiaries. It makes up 90% or more of the income for 32% of elderly beneficiaries.[53]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $12,948/year to individual retired workers receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for an individual is $10,400.[55] [56]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $21,132/year to couples receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for a couple is $14,000.[57] [58]

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp#Benefits

Ahh Steve, you are playing the word games again and let this be a lesson to those unaware of how it works.

I Spoke of Seniors, as being the most wealthy group among us

You reply back with facts a "income".

Sure my retired millionaire neighbor who made a fortune in oil looks pretty poor if you just look at his "income".

These are the people you fight to get free healthcare. TSK TSK

Then I was talking about the wide range of people collecting SSI, who are not even old ...as this program has grown by leaps and bounds..... you reply back ONLY talking about "couples receiving OLD AGE benefits."

Now I ask the question again Steve, WHY SHOULD WORKING CLASS FAMILIES BE TAXED TO PAY FOR MEDS AND HEALTH CARE FOR WARREN BUFFET.... A BILLIONAIRE?

Thats the system you defend.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Plenty of people defend that income tax system that allows Warren Buffett to pay less taxes than his secretary

[Niels Bohr 72]

Danno, if you're going to argue such points with me, better be prepared to back them up with verifiable facts and figures.

Here's some cold hard facts about those old folks you think are swimming in money.

As of 2007, Social Security benefits comprise 50% or more of the income for 63% of elderly beneficiaries. It makes up 90% or more of the income for 32% of elderly beneficiaries.[53]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $12,948/year to individual retired workers receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for an individual is $10,400.[55] [56]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $21,132/year to couples receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for a couple is $14,000.[57] [58]

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp#Benefits

Ahh Steve, you are playing the word games again and let this be a lesson to those unaware of how it works.

I Spoke of Seniors, as being the most wealthy group among us

You reply back with facts a "income".

Sure my retired millionaire neighbor who made a fortune in oil looks pretty poor if you just look at his "income".

These are the people you fight to get free healthcare. TSK TSK

Then I was talking about the wide range of people collecting SSI, who are not even old ...as this program has grown by leaps and bounds..... you reply back ONLY talking about "couples receiving OLD AGE benefits."

Now I ask the question again Steve, WHY SHOULD WORKING CLASS FAMILIES BE TAXED TO PAY FOR MEDS AND HEALTH CARE FOR WARREN BUFFET.... A BILLIONAIRE?

Thats the system you defend.

What kind of people? Explain.

And, if you want to support the working class people why aren't you in to support taxing the rich?

Edited August 28, 2009 by Niels Bohr

[Heracles 417]

I thought this was a good Quote from Thomas Jefferson

"I predict the future happiness of Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them" - Thomas Jefferson

I prefer Andrew Jackson who predicted many years ago that banks and other large private institutions would:

* concentrate the nation's financial strength into single institutions.

* expose the government to control by foreign or private interests.

* serve mainly to make the rich richer.

* would exercise too much control over members of Congress.

* favored northeastern states over southern and western states.

Biggest difference between the two, Jackson's predictions have come true. Whereas, Jefferson's are hearsay.

Edited August 28, 2009 by haza

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, if you're going to argue such points with me, better be prepared to back them up with verifiable facts and figures.

Here's some cold hard facts about those old folks you think are swimming in money.

As of 2007, Social Security benefits comprise 50% or more of the income for 63% of elderly beneficiaries. It makes up 90% or more of the income for 32% of elderly beneficiaries.[53]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $12,948/year to individual retired workers receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for an individual is $10,400.[55] [56]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $21,132/year to couples receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for a couple is $14,000.[57] [58]

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp#Benefits

Ahh Steve, you are playing the word games again and let this be a lesson to those unaware of how it works.

I Spoke of Seniors, as being the most wealthy group among us

You reply back with facts a "income".

Sure my retired millionaire neighbor who made a fortune in oil looks pretty poor if you just look at his "income".

These are the people you fight to get free healthcare. TSK TSK

Then I was talking about the wide range of people collecting SSI, who are not even old ...as this program has grown by leaps and bounds..... you reply back ONLY talking about "couples receiving OLD AGE benefits."

Now I ask the question again Steve, WHY SHOULD WORKING CLASS FAMILIES BE TAXED TO PAY FOR MEDS AND HEALTH CARE FOR WARREN BUFFET.... A BILLIONAIRE?

Thats the system you defend.

What kind of people? Explain.

And, if you want to support the working class people why aren't you in to support taxing the rich?

Are you suggesting I'm not for taxing the rich?

Everyone should pay taxes.

A founding premise of this great Country: We could not except "taxation without "representation".

I mean how dare we pay for a Government we have no say in?

But you know; the converse is perhaps just as true.

How dare someone have a say in a government he doesn't pay for.

It's time we dusted that off and updated it.

No representation without taxation

If you don't pay taxes you don't vote.

Edited August 29, 2009 by Danno

[Danno 1,228]

Plenty of people defend that income tax system that allows Warren Buffett to pay less taxes than his secretary

That is just wrong..... any chance fixing that injustice is on Obamers "2-do" list?

[Niels Bohr 72]

Danno, if you're going to argue such points with me, better be prepared to back them up with verifiable facts and figures.

Here's some cold hard facts about those old folks you think are swimming in money.

As of 2007, Social Security benefits comprise 50% or more of the income for 63% of elderly beneficiaries. It makes up 90% or more of the income for 32% of elderly beneficiaries.[53]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $12,948/year to individual retired workers receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for an individual is $10,400.[55] [56]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $21,132/year to couples receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for a couple is $14,000.[57] [58]

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp#Benefits

Ahh Steve, you are playing the word games again and let this be a lesson to those unaware of how it works.

I Spoke of Seniors, as being the most wealthy group among us

You reply back with facts a "income".

Sure my retired millionaire neighbor who made a fortune in oil looks pretty poor if you just look at his "income".

These are the people you fight to get free healthcare. TSK TSK

Then I was talking about the wide range of people collecting SSI, who are not even old ...as this program has grown by leaps and bounds..... you reply back ONLY talking about "couples receiving OLD AGE benefits."

Now I ask the question again Steve, WHY SHOULD WORKING CLASS FAMILIES BE TAXED TO PAY FOR MEDS AND HEALTH CARE FOR WARREN BUFFET.... A BILLIONAIRE?

Thats the system you defend.

What kind of people? Explain.

And, if you want to support the working class people why aren't you in to support taxing the rich?

Are you suggesting I'm not for taxing the rich?

Everyone should pay taxes.

A founding premise of this great Country: We could not except "taxation without "representation".

I mean how dare we pay for a Government we have no say in?

But you know; the converse is perhaps just as true.

How dare someone have a say in a government he doesn't pay for.

It's time we dusted that off and updated it.

No representation without taxation

If you don't pay taxes you don't vote.

Did you personally made that up?

[Danno 1,228]

Danno, if you're going to argue such points with me, better be prepared to back them up with verifiable facts and figures.

Here's some cold hard facts about those old folks you think are swimming in money.

As of 2007, Social Security benefits comprise 50% or more of the income for 63% of elderly beneficiaries. It makes up 90% or more of the income for 32% of elderly beneficiaries.[53]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $12,948/year to individual retired workers receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for an individual is $10,400.[55] [56]

* As of 2008, Social Security is paying an average of $21,132/year to couples receiving old age benefits. The poverty level for a couple is $14,000.[57] [58]

http://www.justfacts.com/socialsecurity.asp#Benefits

Ahh Steve, you are playing the word games again and let this be a lesson to those unaware of how it works.

I Spoke of Seniors, as being the most wealthy group among us

You reply back with facts a "income".

Sure my retired millionaire neighbor who made a fortune in oil looks pretty poor if you just look at his "income".

These are the people you fight to get free healthcare. TSK TSK

Then I was talking about the wide range of people collecting SSI, who are not even old ...as this program has grown by leaps and bounds..... you reply back ONLY talking about "couples receiving OLD AGE benefits."

Now I ask the question again Steve, WHY SHOULD WORKING CLASS FAMILIES BE TAXED TO PAY FOR MEDS AND HEALTH CARE FOR WARREN BUFFET.... A BILLIONAIRE?

Thats the system you defend.

What kind of people? Explain.

And, if you want to support the working class people why aren't you in to support taxing the rich?

Are you suggesting I'm not for taxing the rich?

Everyone should pay taxes.

A founding premise of this great Country: We could not except "taxation without "representation".

I mean how dare we pay for a Government we have no say in?

But you know; the converse is perhaps just as true.

How dare someone have a say in a government he doesn't pay for.

It's time we dusted that off and updated it.

No representation without taxation

If you don't pay taxes you don't vote.

Did you personally made that up?

For the most part.

I was watching a docu on the middle east the other night and some "expert" was addressing historic governmental problems over there and how Oil money has conversely caused people to surrender their right to have a voice.

I co-oped it.